Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/06/13 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, June 13, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 9 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-12: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12 - Don Goss 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-42: Request to utilize dwelling at 1515 Hilltop Drive as shelter for homeless youth - South Bay Community Services, Inc. (Continued from 5/23/90) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-90-10: Request to reduce sideyard setback and maintain single-car garage at 163 'K' Street - Jay and Janet Jacks 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RV-90-01: Consideration of appeal from decision of Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parking permit at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo ZAV-90-12: Consideration of variance to allow driveway and parking areas to occuply more than 50% of the front yard at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo 5. Consideration of request for a waiver of the requirement to do certain public improvements at northeast corner of Third Avenue and Main Street - Department of Public Works OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENDA -2- June 13, 1990 COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Joint Workshop Meeting with Montgomery Planning Committee and Growth Management Oversight Committee on Wednesday, June 20, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3, Public Services Building. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 13, 1990 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-12: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12 - Don Goss A. BACKGROUND This item is a tentative map to subdivide 1.19 acres at 54/56 'F' Street into six single family lots. The applicant has agreed to a two week continuance in order that additional information may be submitted and received prior to the public hearing. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to continue PCS-90-12 to the meeting of June 27, 1990. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-42; request to utilize dwelling at 1515 Hill top Drive as shelter for homeless youth - South Bay Community Services, Inc. (Continued) A. BACKGROUND This item is a request by South Bay Community Services (SBCS), a local non-profit child and youth service organization, to utilize an existing single family dwelling at 1515 Hilltop Drive in the R-1 zone as an 8-bed shelter for runaway and homeless youth between 12 and 17 years of age. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the proposal is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve PCC-90-42 subject to the following conditions: 1. The facility shall serve no more than eight children at any one time. There shall be at least one qualified staff person on the site and awake at all times. 2. The children shall be properly supervised at all times and shall not be allowed to loiter in the front yard or within the neighborhood. Activities within the dwelling and on the grounds shall not be allowed to create a noise disturbance to surrounding residents. 3. The building and grounds shall be maintained in a neat and orderly appearance. 4. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval or complaints from surrounding residents shall constitute grounds for review and possible revocation of the permit. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North - R-1 - Single family South - R-1 - Single family East - R-1 - Single family West - C-33 & RU-15 - Convenience market and condominiums City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 2 Existin9 site characteristics The site is a 7,000 sq. ft. R-1 lot with a 2,900 sq. ft. single family dwelling. The property is adjoined by single family dwellings to the north, south and east. A convenience market and multiple family are located to the west across Hilltop Drive. Proposed use The dwelling would serve as a temporary shelter for as many as eight runaway and homeless boys and girls between 12 and 17 years of age. The average age of the children is approximately 15 years, with generally more girls than boys. The maximum stay is 60 days, with an average stay of about two weeks. The intent of the program is to provide temporary shelter and other short term assistance while working to reunite the children with their families or finding alternative long term shelter. SBCS has provided a total of four shelter beds through licensed host homes since 1987. Funding for the program comes from federal, state and local sources. Children are referred to the shelter by 24-hour hotlines, other agencies, and an SBCS outreach program partially funded by the City. An initial assessment is conducted by trained counselors to determine individual needs and whether or not placement in a shelter setting is appropriate. This is not a locked facility. The children are subject to the house rules during their stay, but cannot be detained. Trained adult supervision is provided at all times. The children are generally at school between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. during the week days. During those hours and overnight there is one staff person on site. There are two or more staff during the evening hours and on weekends. There are no plans to modify the exterior or interior of the site or dwelling other than those modifications necessary to meet fire and safety codes. The children do not drive, so there is no need for parking other than that required for staff and the occasional guest. SBCS hopes to receive funding to purchase a van to serve the shelter. Please also see the attached information provided by the applicant. D. ANALYSIS As we have stated several times in the past, it is difficult to find an ideal location for a use of this type. The proponents typically believe that it is primarily a residential use and that a location in a residential area is entirely appropriate. On the other hand, these are institutional as well as residential uses by the fact that there is a staff and the occupants are clients as well as residents and often require supervision and treatment or counseling in addition to room and board. These differences can create both real and perceived conflicts with purely residential areas. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 3 We have generally encouraged such facilities to seek locations in interface areas between multiple family and commercial districts. This places the clients, which, as in this case, most often do not drive, within convenient walking distance of commercial services. It also ameliorates the potential conflicts with and understandable concern of residents by placing the facility on the fringe rather than in the middle of a residential area, and in an area favoring renter-occupied rather than owner-occupied dwellings. There are a number of single family dwellings in such transition areas throughout Central Chula Vista and Montgomery. In this instance, the facility would meet what appears to be an important social need -- the provision of shelter, food and assistance for runaway and homeless youngsters. With regard to parking, the property could apparently accommodate the use considering that the children do not drive, and the staff and occasional guest would generally number no more than two or three at any one time. The site is also within a short walking distance of two convenience markets at the southwest and northwest corners of Hilltop Drive and Orange Avenue, as well as a high school, junior high and park. On the other hand, the property is a standard single family lot located within a single family neighborhood area. Generally we would not support an institutional type use of any sort under these circumstances. An argument can be made in this case, however, that the number of clients served is not inconsistent with the size of a larger household and, in fact, a shelter for six or fewer children plus staff would be permitted as a matter of right pursuant to State law which supercedes local land use regulations in such instances. In order to evaluate the impact of this type of use in a single family setting, the staff visited two comparable facilities in the San Diego area. In each instance the staff viewed the exterior and interior of the premises, interviewed the shelter director, and talked with surrounding neighbors. SBCS has offered to provide slides of these facilities plus two others for viewing at the Commission hearing {please see attached list of facilities). Both shelters are single family homes in single family neighborhoods, and offer the same program and serve the same population as the proposed SBCS shelter. One of the shelters has been licensed for 20 years and serves nine children, and the other has been licensed for 13 years and serves eight children. Both facilities were very well maintained inside and out. According to the shelter directors, both programs are very structured and closely supervised. In each instance, the neighbors indicated no problems. One neighbor commented that the children in the shelter are better behaved and supervised than other children in the neighborhood. Staff was very favorably impressed with the appearance and neighborhood reaction to these other facilities. Based upon these findings, as well as the scale of the use and apparent need for this type of program, we are recommending approval of the request subject to the conditions noted above and based on the findings listed below. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 4 On May ll, 1990, the City received a petition with 29 signators opposed to the request (please see attached). The petition reads "Neighborhood petition against the proposed use of 1515 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, as a home for homeless teenagers." The properties represented by the signators are indicated by a dot on the project locator. SBCS held an informational meeting with the neighbors subsequent to the City's receipt of this petition. The Fire Marshal has submitted the following comments: 1. T-2Y, Sec. lO02(f) - Roof covering shall be fire retardant. 2. Smoke alarms shall be provided near sleeping rooms. 3. Corridors shall be minimum 44 inches. 4. Entrance doors to sleeping rooms shall be off a corridor and shall swing into the bedroom. 5. Exterior exit doors shall open in direction of travel with panic hardware. 6. There shall be no locked exits or windows that would otherwise deny exit in case of fire or other emergency. 7. Wrought iron sec. gate must have panic hardware and open with exit travel. 8. Provide one fire extinguisher hung at least 30 inches off floor to be min. 2AlObC size. 9. Provide evacuation plan. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The shelter will provide a desirable and much needed service for runaway and homeless children in the South Bay area. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The use as conditioned should not represent an adverse impact within the neighborhood. The number of children is comparable to a larger household, and a review of similar facilities indicates properties are well maintained and the children are closely supervised and well behaved. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 5 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The use shall be required to comply with applicable codes, conditions and regulations on a continuing basis. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The scale, nature and contemplated operation of the shelter is consistent with General Plan policies for preserving the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. WPC 7781P/2652P ORANGE AVE. BRITTCN ST ...... ~_ ....... · OPPOSITION TO PROJECT South Bay community services Inc. 315 4th Avenue, Suite H · Chula Vista · CA 92010 · (619) 420-3620 / 9790 / 5051 South Bay Community Services (SBCS) has worked with youth in the South Bay region of San Diego County for over 18 years and has provided comprehensive shelter care for runaway and homeless youth since 1987. Currently shelter is available for up to 40 youth per year through the use of licensed host homes. Each month due to bed unavailability SBCS turns away between 10-20 youth who need shelter. Due to this fact the California Department of Housing and Community Development awarded SBCS funds to purchase a house to be used as an 8 bed shelter. Services provided while in shelter are: individual, group and family counseling, education (school and/or tutoring), family reunification or long term placement assistance, medical care and aftercare services. Maximum length of stay is 60 days. Youth requesting shelter services are first assessed by staff, for emergency needs such as medical/health problems, psychological crisis, food, clothing, etc. Before further intervention is attempted, steps are taken to meet these needs if there are any. Further initial assessment will be conducted to determine if the projects' shelter is appropriate. This assessment is comprehensive and covers such areas such as: youth's mental state, physical state, motivation for participation in the project services, family relations, substance use, need for treatment for physical or sexual abuse and other relevant areas. Once completed, the intake staff will determine appropriateness for placement, and if placed, a primary counselor/case manager will be assigned. Staff have both the appropriate educational and experiential background in the youth and family service field. As with all SBCS programs the agency's Clinical Director (Ph.D.) meets with staff weekly and is available for crisis consultation. Each program also has a Program Director with a Masters level degree in counseling or a related field. All Program Directors are under the direct supervision of SBCS' Executive Director. All programs operate under the policies of SBCS' Board of Directors. (See attached Board Roster). South Community Services Inc. 429 Third Avenue e Chula Vista e California ,(619) 420-3620 / 420-9790 March 21, 1990 C±ty of Chula Vlsta Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue ch~]~ Vista, CA 92010 Attached please find a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by South Bay Cs~unity Services, Inc., {SBCS>. This appilcation is for the property at 1515 Hilltop Drive, currently in escrow for purchase by SBCS. The intent is to purchase the property in order to shelter up to 8 homeless & runaway children. South Bay Community Services has worked with youth in the South Bay region of San Diego county for 18 years. SBCS is th~ ~n!y agency provlding shelter far runaway and homeless youth in the South Bay. Since 1987, funding fram the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has enabled us to shelter over 100 youth and reunited over 9G0 with their families. Recently the California Department of Houslng & Community Development awarded South Bay Community Services Emergency Shelter Program funds ~o purchase a house for the project. On behalf of the Board of Directors of South Eay Community Sera, ices, i respectfully request approval of a Conditional Use Permih for the abo~e s~ated purpose. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me. Sincerely, /Kath~Vn Lembo Schroeder Executive Director KLS/tb Attachment OPERATIONAL PLAN South Bay Community Services (SBCS) is proposing to operate an 8 bed shelter for children at 1515 Hilltop.Drive. This shelter (Casa Nuestra) will be a component of SBCS's existing Runaway & Homeless Youth Project. Currently 4 shelter beds are provided through licensed host homes. Last month, due to bed unavailability 19 youth were turned away. Primarily Monday - Friday, due to school and other schedule activities, the house will be closed from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding holidays and sickness. When open, there will be 24 hour/7 day/week adult supervision provided by trained residential counselors. Neighborhood petition AGAINST the pr o~ i~ ~_~ of 1515 HILLTOP Dr CHULA VISTA as a hCK~ ~h~ss CITY CL[HK'S PHONE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS IWHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ~COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of a!l~ersons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. / 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, NcO If yes, please indicate person{s) within the past twelve months? Boards).Commissions, Committees and Council Yes. ~is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copar-~-nership, joint venture, as~ ).s.oc.~al club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, I th!.s..and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, dist,,rict -or othe~ I political subdivision, or any other group ~ombination acting as a unit. (.NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessa(r~y.)'~ -~ ~ Sq~gn~tur~ of ~p~ l icant/'(Fat e WPC 0701P I(athrIFn I~embo Schroecle~ A-110 ~'rint or type name of applicant Ed Caliri, President Shirley Ferril!. Vice-~ ~,;~=~on Manager Program ' P.O. Box 967 2712 14 Chuia Vis=a, CA 92012 Na~ionai City, CA 92050 421-9400 234-3158 (work) Reyes Franco, ea_T~ Charles Moore, ec~ Agent, CVPD Sales Manager 453 Smokey Circle Laidlaw Waste Systems Chula Vista, CA 92010 P.O. Box 967 691-5226 Chula Vista, CA 4~, 9400 ~',~. Campion Ray-Errs Mar._.~ Compton & Associates Ai%rusa Club ~99 Landis Ave Suite 201 Ii~ Palomar Chula Vista, CA 92010 Chuia Vista, CA 92011 425-6040 422-2528 Charles L. Pugsiey William J. Winters 3702 ~ · . w~.~ Oats Lane City o~ Chuia Vlsta Bonita, CA 92002 276 ~ourth Avenue 69i-5203 Chula Vista, CA 92010 691-513~/5055 Kathryn Lenfoo Schroeder *Rosalba Rodriguez, M.D. Sou~h Bay. Community. Services 750 Medical %an__." ~=~ ,It., Ste. 8 429 Thlrd Avenue Chuia Vista, CA 92010 Chu!a Vista, CA 92010 4_,-.~,~ a 420-3620 · Honorable Roy Cazares xCharles Funkhouser South Bay Municipal Court RCHR indistries 500 Third Avenue MZBA Chuia Visna, CA 92010 P.O. Box 878 691-4770 Chuia Vista, CA 92012 · Jim Zoli Juvenile Detective CVPD 323 Tourmaline Court Chula Vista, CA 92011 - 691-5204 *Honorary mem]~ers receive mailings only 1/90 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-90-10; request to reduce sideyard setback and maintain single-car garage at 163 'K' Street - Jay and Janet Jacks A. BACKGROUND 1. This item is a request to reduce the required sideyard setback from l0 ft. to 6.5 ft., and to retain an existing single-car garage rather than providing a two-car garage, in order to construct a 1,200 sq. ft. second-story addition to the single family dwelling at 163 'K' Street in the R-1 zone. 2. The proposal is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve ZAV-90-10 subject to the condition that the project shall be subject to staff design review. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 Single family South - R-1 Single family East R-1 Single family West - R-1 Single family Existing site characteristics. The property is a 51 ft. x 120 ft. R-1 lot with an 800 sq. ft. two-bedroom one-bath single-story dwelling and 209 sq. ft. attached garage. The existing setbacks are 30 ft. in the front, 58 ft. in the rear, 6.5 ft. on the westerly side, and 4.5 ft. on the easterly side. Proposed request. The proposal is to add a 1,200 sq. ft. second-story addition which would double the enclosed floor space plus add a covered porch to the front of the dwelling. The resulting floor plan would contain 1,840 sq. ft. of interior living space, including three bedrooms and three baths. The existing single-car garage would be retained. The proposal fails to comply with two zoning standards. First, the addition is subject to the present R-1 setbacks of 3 ft. and 10 ft., City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 2 rather than the existing as-built setbacks of 4.5 ft. and 6.5 ft. Thus, the proposal to duplicate the existing 6.5 ft. setback for the second-story violates the 10 ft. standard by 3.5 ft. Secondly, additions which constitute 50% or more of the original building square footage require that the property comply with the present R-1 parking standard, which calls for a two-car rather than single-car garage. D. ANALYSIS We believe there are factors which support both aspects of the request: Sideyard setback 1. The addition would conform with the existing setback. An artificial offset of 3.5 ft. or more at the sideyard would represent both a design and structural complication for a second-story addition. 2. The R-1 setbacks were changed from 5 ft. and 5 ft. to 3 ft. and 10 ft. primarily for the purpose of providing one sideyard of adequate width to allow for vehicle access to the rearyard once provided by alleys. In this case, the existing setbacks prevent vehicle access to the rearyard. 3. As the width of a lot decreases below 60 ft., the total difference of 3 ft. between setbacks of 3 ft. and 10 ft. {13 ft.) and $ ft. and 5 ft. (10 ft.) becomes more of a constraint to development. In this case the lot is only 51 ft. wide with a 40 ft. wide dwelling. The difference in 3.5 ft. on one side {lO ft. vs. 6.5 ft.) can represent an even greater hardship in terms of expanding the floor plan in a logical manner. 4. The dwelling would maintain an 11 ft. separation from the adjoining dwelling to the west. This is consistent with the Code, which requires a minimum l0 ft. separation between dwellings. Single-car ~ara~e 1. Although there is adequate space in the rearyard to construct a new two-car garage, as noted above there is no access to the rearyard due to the existing setbacks. It would represent a hardship to require the applicant to remove 3.5 ft. from the existing dwelling to provide such access. 2. The front setback along this section of 'K' Street is 30 ft. A new two-car garage could be constructed to the front of the existing dwelling and still maintain a 10 ft. front setback. It is our opinion, however, that maintaining the front setback in terms of open space and aesthetics is a more important consideration than providing one additional enclosed parking space. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 3 3. One other solution would involve a major structural and floor plan changes by constructing a two-car garage using a 20 ft. front setback {see staff sketch). Such a solution would still require a reduction in the front yard setback from 30 ft. to 20 ft. 4. The proposal to increase the square footage by 100% does not appear unreasonable considering the resulting dwelling would contain just over 1,800 sq. ft. of living area. This translates to an F.A.R. of .37, which is well below the .45 maximum allowed in the R-1 zone. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the request based on the findings listed below. Since this would be one of the first second-story additions within the 100 block of 'K' Street, we believe it should set a positive design standard. As a result, we have recommended a condition of approval which would require staff design review for the purpose of addressing the design details, and to ensure that each elevation is enhanced to some degree. The applicants have submitted signatures representing five surrounding properties in support of the request. These properties are highlighted on the project locator. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. The property is a narrow lot with a small dwelling and existing setbacks which do not conform with present standards. The requested expansion would allow for a reasonable amount of living area. The requirement to comply with present standards with respect to setback and parking would represent a hardship in terms of the exterior design, floor plan and structural considerations. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The approval of the variance will allow an expansion of the dwelling consistent with the existing floor plan and setbacks, and consistent with the size of other single family dwellings within the R-1 zone. Many older properties within the same zone and vicinity are served by only a single-car garage. Also, other properties have the ability to gain vehicle access to the rear yard without the necessity to make major structural alterations to the existing dwelling. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 4 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The approval of the variance as conditioned will not result in an adverse impact by the fact that the minimum l0 ft. separation between dwellings and the front setback will be maintained, and the deeper than normal front setback allows for an open parking space in the driveway well back from the street rather than on the street. Also, the design will be reviewed to ensure a desirable precedent within the neighborhood for any subsequent second-story additions. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The approval of the variance is consistent with City policies for residential development considering the hardships noted above. WPC 7883P/O426P KE ARNEY ST. MILLAN ST. I ~ I ~ I "K" STREET ~ ' I ~ ~ ~ - I ~ / -- - ~ - -~ fi I 'r-" · ,~, ....... SET- B/~CKS -1 ..... 6' 6'~J : 5 'o",,,~ / HENSLEY DESIGN AND CO~TBUCTION 30NSULTANT', 163 K SI PH.~ 258-0482 SI TE PLAN, ~ BEDROOM LIVING ROOH ~ BEDROOM 9+X~' KITCHEN DINING Roor'l EXISTING Ist FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED PORCH ..~ ~ GATH ~ ROOM '-~ ~ ~ ~--~ ~ PROPOSED 1STFLOORPLAN ~ ~ ~ M~ pD~D~DK~ ~y ~ ~ HENSLEY DESIGN AND ~ 5ONSLILTA~T5 ~ ~ ~ etmoor 'X._~~~~ ~ ~ PH ~ 258-0482 S~[[T ~ I pROPOSFD 2nd FLOOR PLAN 'Y 3 19~ RIGHT ELEVATION Dear Neighbor; We are your neighbors at 163 K. Street. We bought this house last summer, and have been saving our money, to give it a "face lift''~. to include a second story. We have two small chi]dren, a girl and a boy, and presently, our house is a two bedroom one bath. I am sure you can understand our desire to add on. We turned our plans in to the City six weeks ago, to go threw "plan check", now at this point the City told us, that when adding fifty percent or more onto you~' home, you must conform to the new building (:odes. Which are: you must be ten fee~ from your propel'ty line on one side, arid three feet on the other side. Our hem6· Js si× and a half feet on ()ne side, and four' and a half on tho other side;. You also must have a bwo caf garage, we [lave a one car garage, and do riot [lave access to the back yard, and the .~etback in the f~ont is fifty feet, which makes it impossible, to add a two car garage. ~e have spent all winter working ()il the plans, and ove~ $5,000. At Chis point, ~¢, are asking the City for a Variance. This will allow us to build our' house, as the plans show. The City ~old us we must ask lot your approval, as a neighbor. We would greatl.y appriciate [,his, and feel strongly, that our ~mprovements f~t into [,he n~ighbor'hood, as well as help to keep the value up. Please :-~Jqn be[ow, incLudJnq' your' a(](]r'e:Js a~d phi)[w; r~umber, al:Let looking over' hhe blucp['[nt,~4. '['hanks again. Jay and Janet Jacks . ~ ~ · City of Chula Vista Planning Department Case No: ~v- Zone Variance Filed:~ Application Zone: Receipt [] Public Hearing ~No Hearing ~ Hearing Date Project Location: .. ^ssessor's Contact Person: Applicant's Interest: ~ No. of years~ Lease In Escrow Option to purchase Code Requires: The following special circumstances that apply to the property must be evident before a variance may be granted from the requirements of the Municipal Code. The strict application of the zoning regulations 1) causes an undue hardship or pose practical difficulties relating to the use of the land because of the lot size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and 2) deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the i~mnedtate vicinity and in the same zone. Keeping the above in mind, the applicant should complete the following statement as thoroughly as possible since it will assist in determining whether sufficient Justification exists to grant the request. , ~u~~ ~ ~~.'_ _) . _ _ , _ / sO L , ~ F~ o~. ~_ s,~ ~ +A, o~oo,~h, ~b~ ~ ~.r ~ ~~rf~T b~, ~,%h~ A ,' ' ' ' / ' ' ~C ~0 ~EE~ C~C~E ~eutO ~rin~- N~e of Applicant/Ageht Fo~m PL-16 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEI~E[N~ APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. '. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names ~f all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Bo~ Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes If yes, please indicate person{s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, conar'~nershi, ~oint social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estateF't~ust, thi~ and any other county, city and county, ~ity, municipality, d~strict or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." of applicant/date ^-ILO type pp i: .t City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RV-90-O1; Consideration of appeal from decision of Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parking permit at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo ZAV-90-12; Consideration of variance to allow driveway and parking areas to occupy more than 50% o~ the front yard at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo A. BACKGROUND This item originated from a neighborhood complaint and an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parking permit to park a 35 ft.-long, 9 ft.-high recreational vehicle in the front yard of the single family dwelling at 34 East Olympia Court in the R-1 zone. In preparing the appeal for the Planning Commission, it was discovered that the proposal also violates a provision of the Code which limits the amount of front yard area which can be devoted to driveways and parking. Accordingly, the applicant was informed that it would be necessary to apply for a variance in order to pursue the appeal. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to deny RV-90-O1 and ZAV-90-12. If the Commission wishes to approve the permit and variance, we recommend a continuance to the meeting of June 27, 1990, so that the Commission's position can be formulated into the necessary variance findings. C. DISCUSSION The Municipal Code provides that parking in the front yard shall be limited to either the driveway or a dust free surface within l0 ft. of the edge of the driveway, unless otherwise authorized by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to an approved site plan. The RV in question would be parked perpendicular to the street on the opposite side of the yard from the driveway, and directly adjacent to the driveway of the neighboring home to the west. The RV would extend almost the entire depth of the front yard -- from the front of the dwelling to within one or two feet of the sidewalk. The Municipal Code also provides that the total combination of driveways and adjacent parking areas shall not occupy more than 50% of the front or exterior sideyard. In this case, the lot is 60 ft.-wide, and pavement has been added to both sides of the driveway to create a 27 ft.-wide area which provides parking for three vehicles. The proposal to add an ll ft.-wide RV parking space on the opposite side of the lot brings the total width to 38 ft., or 63% of the front yard devoted to driveway and parking areas. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 2 The Zoning Administrator denied the front yard parking permit based on safety considerations -- the location and height of the RV would obstruct visibility to the sidewalk and street for vehicles exiting the adjacent driveway. The City Traffic Engineer reports that a minimum distance of l0 ft. from back of sidewalk should remain unobstructed above 3.6 ft. in order to maintain safe conditions, and this is consistent with the City's height limit for fencing in front and exterior side yards. The endorsement of an unsafe condition resulting in injury would also raise the issue of potential liability on the part of the City, according to the City Attorney. With respect to the variance request, the staff can find no hardship which would justify using more than 50% of the front yard of a standard 60 ft.-wide single family lot for driveways and parking areas. In addition to the safety considerations noted above, the proposal is not consistent with the standards for open space and the aesthetic values which have come to be expected in single family areas. It should be noted that the applicant was advised of staff's position on the variance prior to filing the application. The applicant has the option of parking the RV on the street -- provided it is moved at least every 72 hours -- or within an RV storage lot. D. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT The applicant's statement of appeal reads "I have seen many motor homes and other vehicles parked in other front yards under the same conditions throughout the City. I am asking for the same rights. At this time I think there is only one complaint by one person who is my neighbor to the west of me. She has been complaining about everything and anything for the last twenty years. But even so I believe I should have the same right as she does and I wish to park my motor home on my side yard." (Please see attached.) E. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. The property in question is a standard 60 ft.-wide (8,063 sq. ft.) R-1 lot which presents no discernable hardship to justify a variance from the front yard driveway and parking limitations. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 13, 1990 Page 3 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege in that it would allow a greater area for front yard parking and circulation than that which could be established on other properties in the same zone and vicinity. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Granting the variance would obstruct visibility from the adjacent driveway and create a safety hazard for pedestrians and motorists. It would also defeat the open space and aesthetic objectives represented by the front yard setback provisions by allowing an inordinate amount of parking in the front yard. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The grant of the variance is inconsistent with the policies and standards of the City with respect to open space and aesthetics in single family neighborhoods. WPC 7890P CASTLE PARK ELEMENTARY OXFORD ST. I . - -L -'1 qA CT. I E. I PROJECT AREA I ~IDO E. ONEIDA CT. £. ORLANDO CT. EAST PALOMAR City of Chula Vista Date Received d~ ~ ~o Planning Department Fee Paid ~-~ Receipt No. ~-t~ Appeal Fo~m Ca se No: ~/_ ~ _/ Appeal. from the decision of: [] Zoning [] Planning [] Design Review Admi n i strator Commission Committee .~. Appellant: ~ //~t~ ~/~.t~f~ Phone Address: ~Z~j~ ~--- ~/~,~4z~/~ ~7-- ~-_~/~J,,_./~:~ Request for -: ¢~J~-d ]'~"Z~g-*~'~ ?~~~ (Example' zone changet, variance, design review, etc.) Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of rlZA rlPC rlDRC for the property located at: ~/. ~/~ ¢~t.] ~.4~ '- / ' - I'-._;_ .v , ~, , . · I' ~ ..... ~ '' I '- ~ 'C.-' .1~/ / //' Do Not Write In This Space To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No: The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: Planning Commission City'Council on Planning Commissi'on Secretary City Clerk (This form to be filed in triplicate.) PL-60 Rev. 12/83 ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~_ PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application, bid, contract~ o~ prop~i-~ If real property i~.~m)olved, list the names of all persons having any ownership i~terest.' 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation- or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person ~dentified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or asTrustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you or any person named in (1) above had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s) 5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No ~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other gro~t~or combination a 'ncaa unit." (NOT__E: Attach additional pag~__s~.~ary.) , ~) WPC'O7OIP ~- Sign6k~ure of contractor/applicant -- A-110 Print or type name of contractor/applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 13,1990 5. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT TO DO CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF THIRD AVENUE AND MAIN STREET A. BACKGROUND Plans were recently submitted to the City by Kevin O'Neill Construction Company to build a small retail center at the northeast corner of Third Avenue and Main Street (see Exhibit "A"). The Engineering Division imposed the requirement to widen Third Avenue by five feet along the frontage of the property and to install a four-foot-wide raised concrete median in Main Street. The widening of Third Avenue includes relocating several utilities located in the area. The agent for the owner has applied for a waiver of the relocation of the facilities on Third Avenue and construction of the median in Main Street. The City Code requires that all waiver requests be considered by the Planning Commission. A. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request for the subject waiver. B. DISCUSSION: The properties being developed at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and Main Street contain a total of approximately one-half acre. The frontage on Third Avenue is 129 feet and 158 feet along Main Street. It is currently made up of three parcels and must be consolidated in order to be built upon. The City has recently adopted a new general plan, also incorporating updated street-width standards for streets shown on the Circulation Element. It is the City's desire to widen major streets at their intersections. Third Avenue is classified as a Class I Collector and Main Street a 4- lane Major street. In accordance with Chula Vista Standard Drawing No. 1~, the existing curb along Third Avenue must be relocated to provide five feet of widening to be in conformance. As development plans were processed through this department, the requirement to widen Third Avenue was imposed. The required improvements would necessitate the relocation of several facilities currently located within the area to be widened. They are: fire hydrant; (possibly) an underground Pacific Bell vault; traffic signals and; pull boxes. An existing 25-foot-long curb inlet would also have to be reconstructed. Page 2 The owner was also required to pave the adjacent alley to City standards (concrete). He has agreed to that requirement and will be paving the full-width of the alley along the frontage of the property. On March 27, Mr. O'Neill made application for a waiver of the requirement to install the median, relocation of the fire hydrant, traffic signal and curb inlet. He also applied for a deferral of the requirement to install new curb, gutter, sidewalk and a.c. paving necessary for the widening of Third Avenue. The deferral request was considered administratively by the Engineering staff and subsequently denied. (A copy of the memo to the City Engineer regarding the deferral is attached for information.) The waiver request is in conflict with normal processes inasmuch as the widening can not be done without the relocation of the items listed in that request (except for installation of the median). It is believed that by asking for the waiver of the relocation requirements, Mr. O'Neill expects the City to pay costs of those relocations if he is to widen the street. The median in Main Street is needed to prevent vehicles from turning left into the retail center, since the only entrance to the center off of Main Street is one driveway proposed to be located 120 feet from the intersection. Left-turn movements that close to the intersection could pose serious traffic problems. Section 12.24.060 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides for the waiver of the requirement to install public improvements in circumstances and conditions including, but not limited to the following: 1. Where adequate improvements of the nature and type already exist. 2. Sidewalks may be waived where the topography is such that the installation would be impracticable. 3. Where the street has not or can not be readily graded to the established grade. 4. Where the installation of sidewalks would be hazardous to pedestrians because of grade. 5. Where Council has, by resolution, previously waived or modified the requirement for curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Although Item 1 above may be suitable as a reason for a waiver, the City has, in several similar circumstances, required the widening of intersections as part of the development on the properties. No other circumstance or condition above is applicable in this case. Page 3 The Circulation Element of the current General Plan calls out Third Avenue and Main Street as Class I Collector streets, each being 4-lane, with 8-foot parking lanes and a 10-foot-wide median, with the current rate of redevelopment taking place in the Montgomery area and anticipated growth of commercial and industrial uses, the widenings (especially at intersections) should occur as soon as possible to accommodate the traffic flow. In Mr. O'Neill's letter accompanying the application for the waiver, he states that the widening and construction of the median will cost approximately $90,000 as compared to the approximate cost of onsite improvements of $285,000. Cost of the facilities is not one of the criteria considered in determining whether an item can be waived. A similar situation occurred recently when Southland Corporation built a 7-Eleven store at Hilltop Drive and Naples Street. widening of both streets was required and was subsequently completed by Southland. Shortly thereafter, the owner of the adjacent shopping center proposed to upgrade the exterior of his building. Again, the widening requirement was imposed. The subsequent waiver request was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant then appealed to the City Council and was once again denied the waiver. (He subsequently downgraded his exterior work to stay under the $10,000 threshold Based on the facts contained herein, we find that we cannot support the grant of the requested waiver and recommend that the Commission deny the request. JH/PD-097 ALLEY ! STREET OEOICATION , STREET WIDENINO TEL. I~.~. j ~ TRAFFIC ~IGN~L ~ ~ ~ EROU5 PULL BOXES TO RELOCATE ~ EX/ST ~5' CB INLET RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN w.o. # PD 097 DRAWN BY I 1' I 1. L E ___L: _M._. G_; --I WAIVEt~ R£OU£$T DA1.E 0'18'90 N,E. CORNER THIRD AVE. 8 MAIN ET. April 16, 1990 File No. PD098 TO: Clifford L. Swanson. Deputy Director of Public Works/ City Engineer. FROM: William A. Ullrich, Senior Civil EngineeringS-~ SUBJECT: Deferral request for the widening of Third Avenue at Orange Avenue, northeast corner M. Kevin O'Neill Construction Company, Inc. recently submitted plans to build a small commercial center at the subject site (see Exhibit "A"~. At the plan review stage, Engineering imposed the requirement to widen Third Avenue to current standards. This results in the necessity to do the following work: 1. Relocate the curb five feet easterly. 2. Install approximately 660 s.f. of a.c. pavement and base. 3. Rebuild a 25-foot curb inlet now located in the curb return. Relocate an existing traffic signal. 5. Relocate fire hydrant. 6. Possibly relocate Pac Bell vault, depending on if it conflicts with the proposed curb. A requirement to install a raised, p.c.c, median in Main Street was also imposed. On 3/27/90, Mr. O'Neill made application for the following: A/ A deferral of the requirement to widen Third Avenue. A waiver of the requirement to construct the median and relocate the curb inlet, traffic signal and fire hydrant. These requests are~ of course, not consistent, since the widening cannot occur without relocating the facilities. By asking for a waiver of the relocations, I believe he is looking to the City to pay for these relocations~ This report is concerning the deferral, only, since any waivers must be considered by the Planning Commission. Section 12.24,070 of the City Code provides for deferrals if any of the following facts exist: 1. Installation of the improvements would create a hazardous condition. 2. Installation would be incompatible with the present development of the area. _ April 16, 1990 ~a~e 2 3. Installation would be premature because of existing conditions of surrounding area. 4. Would be desirable to install as an overall improvement project. 5. Installation would be impractical for some other reason. The applicant checked Items 3 and 4 on the application. To address each of the foregoing individually: 1. The widening of the street would not create a hazardous condition. 2. Although there are no existing improvements on the other three corners at this intersection, the improvements would not make it incompatible. The improvements would not be premature, since there are some in place now. 4. If tile project site was mid-block, it would be desirable to install the improvements as an overall project. And, of course, costwise, it would be less expensive. 5. Installation would not be impractical. The fact that the property is at the corner contributes to the requirement to widen. The transition to the existing curb and gutter to the north will not hamper the drainage as the grade of the street is to the south. As you may recall, we recently required the 7 Eleven store and the shopping center adjacent to it to widen Hilltop Drive and Naples Street. As an item of information, the applicant stated in his letter to Hal Rosenberg that the improvements would total $90,000 as compared to $285,000 for the onsite work (32%]. We have not done a cost estimate for the widening, but with all the relocations that must be done, that figure is probably close. Hal has indicated to me that although widening is needed for anticipated future traffic growth, there is no immediate problem. Rosenberg indicated to me and Mr. O'Neill that from a traffic operational point of view, he would not be opposed to a deferral. However, in a followup discussion with Rosenberg, he said that the widening would be beneficial by providing a buffer area for right turns into the project. The applicant has agreed to dedicate the necessary right of way (5 feet along Third Avenue] to accommodate the widening. He also is improving the adjacent alley (full 20-foot width along his frontage]. April 16, 1990 Page 3 Due to the findings contained herein, we recommend that the deferral be denied. If you feel that denial is not appropriate, it is recommended that the deferral be limited to three years and that a cash bond in the amount of 110% of the final estimate b~ posted for the life of the deferral. The deferral request is hereby Approved Denied '~ CLIFFOkD ' -" L. SWANSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CMF June 4, 1990 To: Planning Commission From: Bob L eiter, Director of Planning Subject: Budget Review The City Council will be holding a review of the proposed Boards and Commission budgets on Monday, June 11, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Attached is the proposed budget for the Planning Commission. Please let me know if you have any questions on this. RAL:nr Attachment